Reference Material

Disclaimer, Copyright

The U.S.S. Mariner is in no way affiliated with, condoned or given any notice by the Seattle Mariners baseball team, who have their own website. Similarly, we have no association with the ownership group or any businesses related to the Mariners. All article text is written by the authors, all pictures are taken by the authors, who retain copyright to their works. No copying or reproduction of any content here, photographic or otherwise, is authorized. Please email us if you wish to reproduce our work.

Why Albert Pujols will break the single-seaon home run record

Albert Pujols is having an almost unbelievable year. He’s hitting .323. His on-base percentage is .449. He’s on pace to hit over eighty home runs. It’s ridiculous. The season’s a little over a quarter done, but at this rate, he’s going to walk about 140 times and strike out only 45 times. That’s historic.

Pujols has to hit 50 home runs the rest of the way to tie Bonds at 73. Now, there’s reason to believe he won’t keep up this torrid pace. He’s currently putting over 30% of fly balls over fences, which is way over his career numbers around 20%.

Hitting 50 home runs over the next 110+ games is not that tough for Pujols, though. Assume he cools off tomorrow and goes back to only hitting a home run every 14 at-bats. That’s another 30, to finish at 53.

Where do the other twenty come in? He’s going to be given them. The pitches aren’t going to come gift-wrapped, and he’s not going to have meatballs grooved over the plate. But he’ll be challenged, and Pujols will hit home runs in many of those situations.

It’s that simple. When Bonds pursued the record, when he wasn’t intentionally walked, he was semi-intentionally walked: they’d throw him four garbage pitches hoping he’d swing at something so awful the only thing he could do with it would be to ground out weakly or pop up. Bonds’ 2001 is the 8th-most anyone’s been walked intentionally. Four of the seven slots ahead of that year are other Bonds seasons. He got walked 120 times in 2004, putting the brakes on a year where he might have challenged his own record. This hasn’t been helped by the Giants’ offense, but that’s beside the point.

Whether or not the intentional walk is the right choice for opposing managers to make, the only way the record can be challenged will be for a prodigious power hitter to get a ton of at-bats. St. Louis doesn’t have an offense that gets on base a lot to turn the lineup over and get Pujols more at-bats, unfortunately, but that won’t matter.

Every manager who faces the decision on whether or not to walk a hitter has to decide whether that’s the best move. If they’re facing a player involved in the home run chase at home, they have to make an additional consideration: how pissed are these fans going to be if I don’t pitch to this guy, and does that mean the owner’s going to be chewing on my butt before tomorrow’s game?

That pressure will be much greater for Pujols. People believe he’s clean. They like him. They don’t like Bonds. He’s tainted, and as long as he holds the record, the record is tainted. When Pujols threatens 73, they will yearn for his success, even at the expense of their own team, because if the record is held by a clean player, the record’s redeemed, and baseball will have in a symbolic way closed the book on the steroid era.

Every manager will also weigh their own personal views — do they want to take away a chance for Pujols to beat Bonds? I can’t imagine that Bonds is any more popular among opposing managers than he is with any other segment of baseball, and it’s not as if managers live in a vacuum and don’t get earfuls from people they know about the state of the game. If Pujols cracking the record makes everyone’s life easier, the decision becomes easier too.

I don’t expect that any of these considerations, consciously considered or not, will override a manager’s better judgement. If they love the intentional walk, and they think it’ll help win, they’ll still call for it. But all of these things will help push decisions on when to pitch to Pujols strongly in Pujols’ favor.

Similarly, pitchers aren’t going to want to give up a home run to Pujols, but they’re going to feel the same way their managers will: better him than Bonds, and if I get beat challenging Pujols and go into the record books that way, it could be worse.

This sounds a little strange, I understand. Yet it’s already happening. Pujols is a monster hitter on a tear. Would you pitch to that guy? But he’s only been walked seven times this season. He’s walked on purpose far less often than you’d expect given his career numbers (compare his last few years to Bonds’ 2002-2004, for instance), but seven times a quarter of the way into a season like this? It doesn’t make sense, no matter who else is behind them, they’re not Albert Pujols.

Pujols’ hot start makes a run at the title possible, and unless we see a dramatic shift in sentiment, he’ll be given every opportunity teams can spare to make sure his path is clear.

Tags:

Comments

41 Responses to “Why Albert Pujols will break the single-seaon home run record”

MarinerDan on
May 25th, 2006 5:21 pm

Wow, interesting theory, but I don’t know. Seems hard to believe that managers/players would risk doing harm to themselves by challenging Pujols against their self-interest just to spite Bonds. A number of potential problems with this theory:

* Not clear that players/managers feel the same way about Bonds that the media/public does. I have heard a number of players come to his defense (there are some noted exceptions).
* Perhaps Pujols just doesn’t have the “mystique” Bonds had (and has) when it comes to teams fearing him. This could change over the course of this season.
* I don’t think any pitcher would put his hatred of Bonds over his own self interest.

Nevertheless, I have been puzzled that AP hasn’t been shown first base more frequently this year….

Seems hard to believe that managers/players would risk doing harm to themselves by challenging Pujols against their self-interest just to spite Bonds

Except that I specifically call out that that won’t happen, that’s a good point. The point is that where it’s not a clear-cut decision, they’re much more likely to pitch to him.

Jim Thomsen on
May 25th, 2006 5:32 pm

Is it as clear that Bonds is as unpopular with baseball insiders as he is with baseball outsiders?

JMHawkins on
May 25th, 2006 5:51 pm

You might be right. Making the call on an IBB (or a “pitcharound”) happens at the gut level for most managers. Maybe they’ll be more inclined to say “see what the kid can do.” And the home crowd – remember when Cameron had 4 HRs in one game in Chicago and got beaned in his fifth AB? The crowd boo’d their own pitcher. But I also remember people saying Ichiro! would never break the single-season hit record because managers would walk him to protect Sisler’s memory, but, eh, that didn’t happen. Of course, Sisler’s family came out to see Ichiro. Ruth’s family, not so much for Bonds. Ah, who knows?

Speaking of hits, the whole Bonds thing would be a lot easier if he was chasing the career hits record. Tied with Cobb and chasing Rose, I think people would be more okay with that since nobody liked those guys much either.

“…the Royals took 17 players in the 1999 draft and not one was named Albert Pujols, a power-hitting infielder who had played both high school and college baseball practically in the shadow of Kauffman Stadium. By the time St. Louis snapped up Pujols, the Royals had acquired such prospects as Jay Gehrke, Brian Sanches, Enrique Bengochea, Mackeel Rodgers, James McAuley and Eric Nelson….”

Hmm. I was going to give Bloomquist the benefit of the doubt, with the whole points-for-grit thing and all, but Pujols has more legit facial stubble.

joser on
May 25th, 2006 11:14 pm

I’m pretty sure I saw an analysis a couple of years ago that concluded if there was nobody on ahead of him it was always better to pitch to Bonds than to IBB him. And that was when he had no protection behind him in the lineup, something Pujols has.

Anyway, I don’t care about 73. As far as I’m concerned, every record after Roger Maris is potentially tainted. If Pujols hits more than 61, he owns the record with no asterisk required.

(I also didn’t care a whit about Bonds getting 715 — Ruth too was a lout who didn’t face Satchel Paige or any number of other great pitchers of his era — but I do hope Bonds retires before he gets close to embarassing the legitimately great Aaron).

In any case, HRs are for the casual fan. The triple crown would indeed be something. But I hope I live to see someone hit .400 over an entire season. That would be impressive.

Jim Thomsen on
May 25th, 2006 11:18 pm

I’m far more invested in seeing Earl Webb’s doubles record go down. The fact that that record has stood for 77 years is insanely impressive.

Trev on
May 26th, 2006 7:00 am

I would love to see Pujols break the record. One factor not mentioned is that New Busch Stadium, which no one has correct park factors for, might be a home run park. Or that’s what I hear.

terry on
May 26th, 2006 7:11 am

Great piece but you overlooked one very critical fact that all but assures that opposing managers will decide to pitch to Pujols…..he has Spezio in the line up to *protect him*…. 😛

I think every pitcher in the league ought to toss at Bonds and every ump in the league ought to be busy adjusting his mask…just my opinion.

Bonds has not now or never will surpass Ruth in HR’s. Cheating doesn’t count. Bonds has cheated. It makes no difference if the rules and testing were in place or not. Using PED’s is cheating and they all know it.

One doesn’t need a rule to understand when cheating has occured. One knows when fairness has been denied. When my son was 2 years old I poured us both a soda out of a 2 litre bottle. I poured him a small glass full while I poured myself a much larger glass. At the age of two, he looked at me and said that it wasn’t fair that I got more then him. Humans know the concept of fair from a very early age. He wasn’t taught that, it is innate in humans. Understanding fairness is something that we are all born with. It takes years of selfish behavior to kill that sense of right and wrong.

That’s ridiculous. Whether or not you think Bonds has used steroids, or your opinion of that, advocating that pitchers should try and hurt him intentionally is no better than asking the catchers to pop him one in the jaw. Advocating violence has no place in this, or any, serious discussion of a home run record.

It’s all the more appalling that you’d advocate trying to injure someone while using a story about your kid to illustrate your concept of fairness. What garbage.

Absolutely you need a rule to identify cheating. Cheating is, definitionally, a violation of the rules. No rules = no cheating.

But back on topic, this same thing happened to Mark McGwire in 1998. The pressure to pitch to him late in the season was strong, and that’s the only reason he made it to 70.

loki on
May 26th, 2006 10:11 am

If I remember correctly, McGwire had 4 home runs in his last 2 games… against a team that was out of contention. That team didn’t have a strong enough reason not to pitch to him. Anyway, depending on the schedule and where teams are at in the playoff race will also determine if the pressure to pitch to him wins out over the pressure to make the playoffs for that team.

Another factor that year was the race between Mark and Sammy. Will there be as much pressure to pitch to Albert if he’s only racing against the record by himself?

Russ on
May 26th, 2006 11:05 am

Derek,

sorry, sarcasm was my intent. This obviously went over like a lead balloon. Please feel free to either delete that post or leave it to bring great attention to my error.

Evan, I disagree with regards to the rules. Why was Bonds so silent about his relationship with BALCO? Why all the code names such as Clear and Cream? They knew what they were doing was wrong and they went to great lengths to keep it all very hush hush.

Steve T on
May 26th, 2006 11:24 am

It would be nice to see Pujols take the record, simply because he’s clean, and it would stop most of the “Bonds cheated, there’s no way he hit those by himself” talk — though not all of it, see above.

It might even force the sportswriters to focus on a few aspects of the steroids scandal that they are totally ignoring now: (a) just how MUCH juice does a hitter get out of steroids, anyways? (b) what if it’s mostly PITCHERS who benefited? and (c) what if it’s mostly mediocre or worse Ryan Franklins and Mike Morses who are desperate enough to use them?

It’s quite possible that Bonds and McGwire took a ton of steroids, and maybe possible that he got a few extra HR out of it. But how many? I mean, really, if steroids can so easily take you from 40 to 70 HR, then how come all the other supposed juicers didn’t do it? How come Palmiero didn’t jump up to 70?

And isn’t it true that one of the supposed great benefits of steroid use is that you can come back much more quickly from injury or damage? That sounds like something that would benefit a pitcher, who damages his arm every time he throws. But they’re not dragging all sorts of random old-timers out of their wheelchairs to whine about how Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux “must” be tainted, since success is so obviously evidence of cheating.

Whatever his other flaws, Bonds’s antagonistic relationship with the press is mostly the press’s fault. If I ever got a chance to ask Barry a question it would be “how much of your antagonistic relationship to the press do you think is a result of the way they treated you early in your career, when you were the best player in all of baseball but so seldom recognized or credited for what you accomplished then, long before the records started to fall?”

Maybe if Pujols can top him they’ll be forced to find some other reason for it, like maybe these guys are really, really good hitters. Barry as well as Albert. Pujols is still about 150 points back of Barry’s season best in OPS, in an easier park, in a third of a season.

Mat on
May 26th, 2006 12:03 pm

Scott Rolen. Jim Edmonds. I think those guys are two of the big reasons, in addition to the popularity issue, that Pujols will be pitched to more than Bonds. I don’t have team splits going back to 2001, but in 2004, when Bonds had 120 IBB, the Giants’ 5th hitters had a combined line of .255/.317/.389. If they could’ve put up something decent, at least managers and pitchers would’ve had to think about pitching to Bonds. As it is, Rolen’s and Edmonds’ reputations alone will make managers hesitant to put Pujols on base for them to drive in.

It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make sense, no matter who else is behind them, theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not Albert Pujols.

Pujols probably isn’t being walked quite enough, but the difference in guys hitting behind Pujols and guys hitting behind Barry seems pretty big to me. I’m not much of a fan of the intentional walk anyway, so it’s tough for me to advocate walking Pujols more often.

Mat on
May 26th, 2006 12:05 pm

One factor not mentioned is that New Busch Stadium, which no one has correct park factors for, might be a home run park.

Pujols has 12 HR at home and 11 HR on the road. If the park is really a HR park, it doesn’t seem to be helping him much so far.

Russ, not only is it deplorable that you’re advocating throwing at a guy, but your concept of “fairness” is out of whack. In some cases, equality=fairness, but it does not necessarily have anything to do with it. The two year old wants more soda, but what’s fair is that he gets an amount proportional to his body, what he can handle, which is probably less than the amount an adult can handle.
Also, I’d like everyone to acknowledge that DMZ made a point of saying “People BELIEVE Pujols is clean” (emphasis mine). There is no proof one way or the other, so holding him up as the Great Clean Hope without reservation is naive. Remember that for all the proof we have of Bonds’s steroid use, and he has essentially been proven to have used, he has also never failed a drug test.
The saddest part of the whole Steroid Era is that every professional athlete is suspect, and right now, there’s no way any of them can deflect that suspicion. To play devil’s advocate… I’d like to point out that Pujols plays for Tony LaRussa, a known enabler when it comes to PEDs, even if he doesn’t condone their use. Pujols also came up to the big leagues a fully-developed specimen of muscle and quick hands. How many 22 year olds are that huge and developed? Knowing that athletes and chemists will always be ahead of testers… (/devil’s advocate)

And Russ, I’m sorry that I also missed the sarcasm and just now saw your later post.

Jim Thomsen on
May 26th, 2006 12:28 pm

Hopefully this will all be moot in about eight years when Alex Rodriguez obliterates Hank Aaron’s record.

joser on
May 26th, 2006 1:05 pm

I knew guys that had to start shaving in the 7th grade. Some people develop early, and some people get massive muscles while others don’t even in the absence of “treatments.”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Joe Strauss reports St. Louis Cardinals 1B Albert Pujols has been tested three times this season for performance-enhancing drugs, passing all of them.

Yeah, doping science may be way ahead and Pujols may be taking something unknown or undetectable (and so might ARod). Or he may be clean (and so might ARod). Whatever the case, Pujols is definitely more likable than Bonds (and probably ARod).

eric on
May 26th, 2006 1:06 pm

Steve,

I think there is “using steroids” vs “using steroids with a lab and trainers who know what their doing to really benefit”

What I mean by that is lots of guys like Morse and Lawton apparantly experimented with ‘roids when trying to come back from injuries, but they aren’t some magic that you inject and become Jose Canseco. What Canseco and Bonds and likely the guys Canseco taught had were access to trainers who knew what they were doing. They knew how to mix workouts with what/when to take to get the benefits. At the gym you see lots of body builder wanna-bes who lift lots of weight and take who knows what to get grotesquely big; what big time track and field cheaters like Ben Johnson (and all the Balco caught people) did was a whole lot more sophisticated and took expert help.

eric on
May 26th, 2006 1:09 pm

Jim,

Yeah and A-Rod will break the record on a grand slam when his team is down by 9:-)

Russ – Wrong and cheating are different things. I make no claims that baseball has any moral value whatever. I would further assert that rules are value-neutral. They’re just arbitrary limits placed on the game.

As such, sure, let’s assume Bonds kept quiet because he knew people would be upset about his PEDs. He knew they’d view him with scorn and derision.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the rules of baseball, and those are what determine if he was cheating.

It’s not by accident I claim to be the Ideal Rational Agent. I have some funny ideas about some stuff.

Russ on
May 26th, 2006 2:52 pm

#27

Russ, not only is it deplorable that youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re advocating throwing at a guy,

I’ve taken my lumps here. I made light in a manner in which reasonable people have been offended. My bad. I don’t wish to see any athlete hurt regardless of who they may be or my opinion of them. I want them all to grow old with everything working so they can play with their children. Again, my bad. I laughed but I laughed alone. Had I said this over beers, many of us may have laughed but none of us would be hoping to see that happen.

The two year old wants more soda, but whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fair is that he gets an amount proportional to his body, what he can handle, which is probably less than the amount an adult can handle.

I think you missed my point. I agree that a smaller portion is fair for a 2-year old. What I’m saying is that a 2-year old already understands and recognizes the concept of fairness. He may not have recognized the size differential, he only knew that him and I are both people, therefore equal. That is my point, children get the philosphophical equality of people and fair play. He questioned the situation and discerned an inequality.

Russ on
May 26th, 2006 2:57 pm

Evan,

Wrong and cheating are different things. I make no claims that baseball has any moral value whatever. I would further assert that rules are value-neutral. TheyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re just arbitrary limits placed on the game.

Nothing is value-neutral, can’t be by definition. If people didn’t care one way or another, there’d be no reason to set a rule. All rules are value driven.

The game of baseball has no moral value but the people who do play and watch baseball are value driven. That many were offended by my earlier comment is great testament to that. They saw that as evil, wrong and not ommensurate with their values of right and wrong.

dan on
May 26th, 2006 2:59 pm

#25 thanks for writing this. i felt like it was overwhelmingly obvious, but apparently this was overlooked.

way before all the other decision points dmz mentions you have to look at who you will face after the walk. rolen has an ops of just under .900. for most of bonds’ hot years, the rest of the sf lineup has been total garbage. it’s amazing he ever got a pitch to hit.

“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s quite possible that Bonds and McGwire took a ton of steroids, and maybe possible that he got a few extra HR out of it. But how many? I mean, really, if steroids can so easily take you from 40 to 70 HR, then how come all the other supposed juicers didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do it? How come Palmiero didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t jump up to 70?”

Perhaps it wasn’t easy … perhaps Barry actually had more talent or worked harder at it than Palmeiro … and perhaps Raffie started Roids earlier in his career and his 40 was was the result or 20-25 guy using. Of course, Palmeiro says he wasn’t a user at all – so maybe he could have hit 70.

But starting from the assumption that Bonds started using in 2000 or so after seeing what McGwire & Sosa did, it should be relatively easy to determine it’s affect. Project his normal career output using numbers through 2000 … the difference should be the Roids effect. I think this has been done somewhere but I don’t remember where.

Maybe if Pujols can top him theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be forced to find some other reason for it, like maybe these guys are really, really good hitters. Barry as well as Albert. Pujols is still about 150 points back of BarryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s season best in OPS, in an easier park, in a third of a season.

There’s a flaw in the OPS calculation – IBB are the result of the opponent manager’s strategy (which as mentioned above is a function of who’s up next, the score, the manager’s frame of mind etc) and not results actually produced by the hitter. Til Bonds, the difference was pretty much negligible – but the two players are much closer than generally believed as a result.

AMarshal2 on
May 26th, 2006 7:00 pm

Sorry I don’t have time to read through the whole thread so I don’t know if this is mentioned but THT shows that Pujols’s ld% is down and his fb% is up from his career. Perhaps he’s just becomming more of a fly-ball hitter? Too early to tell, but it would probably result in a loss of average and increase in HR’s.